Disposed

P.N.Suresh Kumar v. Kochi Devaswom Board

Kerala HC23 Mar 2016WP(C)/14159/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his appointment as Marar Sambanthi in a Hindu temple, claiming fraud and lack of consent from tharwad members. The court held his appointment invalid under the partition deed, ordered the Board to decide the post within three months, and allowed the petitioner to continue in the post meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to continue in the post; Board to decide appointment measures within three months.

P.N.Suresh Kumar Vs Kochi Devaswom Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/3RD CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

W.P.(C).No.14159 of 2013 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.N.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA PISHARADI, THAZHATHEMARUTHE HOSUE, PERUMMPILLY - 682 314,

¶8

WORKING AS MARAR SAMBANTHI IN SRI.NARASIMHASWAMI TEMPLE, PERUMPILLY.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR

¶10

SMT.V.SHYLAJA.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶12

COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,

¶13

REP. BY ITS SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRISSUR.

¶14

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF DEVASWOMS, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIPUNITHURA.

¶15

THE JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER, KUREEKADU DEVASWOM, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, KUREEKADU.

¶16

P.N.HARIDAS,, AGED 52 YEARS, PUNNAKKATTU PARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMBILLY P.O.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. V. KRISHNA MENON. R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.SURESH

¶18

SRI.SHANKAR V.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.14159 of 2013 (T)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3. THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4. THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶29

EXHIBIT R4(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.513/1957 OF MULANTHURUTHY SUB REGISTRY' OFFICE. EXHIBIT R4(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION 21.04.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE BOARD. EXHIBIT R4(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION 21.04.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE MEMBERS OF MURIYANKERI MARAR BEFORE THE BOARD.

¶30

Vku/[ true copy ]

¶31

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶32

--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.14159 of 2013-T

¶33

¶34

Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner claims to have been appointed as 'Marar Sambanthi' in Perumpilly Narasimhaswami Temple, as per Exhibit P1. Admittedly Marar Sambanthi is a hereditary right conferred on the members of Muriyankeri Marath and the Thavazhi members of Kutty Amma of the said tharwad. The petitioner contended that the petitioner has been continuing as Marar Sambanthi as early as from 2002, as per Exhibit P1 appointment and on a complaint filed in 2013 [Exhibit P2], the Board has now thought it fit to revise the system by Exhibit P3. The petitioner's challenge is against Exhibit P3, on the ground that the complainant in Exhibit P2, who is the 4^th respondent herein, had raised a similar complaint in the year 2007 which was rejected by the Board. The petitioner's appointment, which had continued for long, cannot be unsettled on the basis of Exhibit P2 complaint, is the specific contention.

¶37

The 4^th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, in which Exhibit R4(a) deed has been produced, which indicates that the then existing members of the tharwad, who were

¶38

WP(C) No.14159 of 2013 - 2 -

¶39

entitled to share in the tharwad properties, had executed a deed by which the hereditary right of 'Adiyanthiram' was decided to be jointly enjoyed by the tharwad members. The 4^th respondent contends that there was no consent obtained by the petitioner, from the other members. In such circumstance, the appointment which the petitioner obtained in the year 2002 was fraudulent. It was also contended that the 4^th respondent had filed a complaint in the year 2007 also, which had not evoked any response from the Board. The 4^th respondent submits, despite Exhibit P3 the Board is not proceeding to decide as to who is to be 'Marar Sambanthi' of the temple.

¶40

The Board has filed a statement dated 10.07.2013, wherein on verification of the records it is stated that the petitioner was not appointed on consent. One N.G.Sajeevan, who was entrusted with the duties of Marar Sambanthi of the temple on a temporary basis, had committed default in his duties, whereupon the Assistant Commissioner of the Board had recommended the petitioner's name. It was based on the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioner that the petitioner was appointed as Marar Sambanthi in the year 2002. It is categorically stated by the Board

¶41

WP(C) No.14159 of 2013 - 3 -

¶42

that there was no consent obtained by the petitioner from the family

¶43

members.

¶44

In the circumstances placed on record by the Board, the petitioner, by virtue of Exhibit P1 appointment alone, would not get a right to be continued in the post of 'Marar Sambanthi'. The mere fact of such appointment made on a mistake, even if not amounting to fraud; the specific clause in Exhibit R4(a) cannot be effaced. This Court need not address the question of whether there had been a fraud perpetrated; since it has been found that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to have interfered with the hereditary right of the other members of the tharawad.

¶45

The right was decided to be enjoyed by all the members. It is for the Board, hence, to decide upon the further proceedings as per Exhibit P3. The Board could, in fact, devise measures to make a suitable appointment, either by calling for willingness and decide on a conferment of right on rotation basis or by calling for the opinion of the senior-most member of the tharwad (Karanavar). However, it is not for this Court now to specifically indicate as to which are the measures to be followed, since it would

¶46

depend on the interpretation given to Exhibit R4(a) deed and also

¶47

WP(C) No.14159 of 2013 - 4 -

¶48

the practice of the Board in such matters. The Board would, hence, decide upon Exhibit P3 within a period of three months from today. In the meanwhile, the petitioner will be continued. It is also made clear that the petitioner does not derive any right exclusively, to continue as 'Marar Sambanthi' in the temple, merely because of his appointment as per Exhibit P1, which the Board has categorically stated, is only due to a recommendation of an Assistant Commissioner and not by way of consent of the members of the tharwad. The Board shall take a decision in the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment after notice of hearing to all the affected parties.

¶49

The writ petition would stand disposed of with the above observations. The parties are left to suffer their respective costs.

¶50

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶51

vku/-

¶52

[ true copy ]

P.N.Suresh Kumar v. Kochi Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N.Suresh Kumar v. Kochi Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Titto Thomas Vs Bank of India

A.Fasal Rahuman Vs State of Kerala

C.I. Antony Vs Md, Khrws

Francis Jose Changamkery Vs the Deputy Director (Education)

Aleykutty Abraham Vs M.G.University Appellate Tribunal

N.v.Lal Vs the State of Kerala